{"title":"Qualitative and quantitative analysis of aerosol and droplet dispersion during simulated dental implant procedures using three types of instruments.","authors":"Hiromitsu Morishima, Tomonari Kajita, Jun Watanabe, Kenji Kikuchi, Yoko Iwamatsu-Kobayashi, Wataru Yashiro, Hiroyasu Kanetaka, Hiroshi Egusa, Kensuke Yamauchi","doi":"10.1007/s00784-025-06583-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the generation and dispersion dynamics of aerosols and droplets produced during dental procedures, including implant surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials & methods: </strong>Dental procedures were simulated on a test model using three different instruments: an air turbine handpiece, an ultrasonic device, and an implant motor. Particle behavior was visualized using two types of illumination light sources combined with a high-speed digital camera, enabling both qualitative and quantitative assessments of aerosol and droplet dispersion. Additionally, droplet deposition on water-sensitive paper placed in three different locations was analyzed to compare dispersion patterns among the three instruments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The air turbine handpiece produced the highest luminance intensity (mean ± SD: 112.3 ± 6.4 a.u., n = 9), which was significantly greater than that of the implant motor (78.5 ± 5.2 a.u., n = 9; p < 0.05). For all devices, droplet diffusion was lower during molar treatment than during anterior tooth procedures. Water-sensitive paper analysis revealed increased droplet deposition at the extraoral vacuum site when the vacuum was activated (air turbine: 62 droplets; ultrasonic device: 49 droplets; n = 3 trials each), whereas droplet counts decreased at the patient's forehead.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Simulated implant surgery generated less droplet dispersion compared with other dental procedures. Furthermore, the use of an extraoral vacuum markedly reduced droplet spread during various dental treatments.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>These data support layered controls-judicious instrument selection and extraoral suction-to reduce exposure during aerosol-generating procedures. Findings derive from a standardized simulation and should be validated in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"29 11","pages":"489"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06583-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the generation and dispersion dynamics of aerosols and droplets produced during dental procedures, including implant surgery.
Materials & methods: Dental procedures were simulated on a test model using three different instruments: an air turbine handpiece, an ultrasonic device, and an implant motor. Particle behavior was visualized using two types of illumination light sources combined with a high-speed digital camera, enabling both qualitative and quantitative assessments of aerosol and droplet dispersion. Additionally, droplet deposition on water-sensitive paper placed in three different locations was analyzed to compare dispersion patterns among the three instruments.
Results: The air turbine handpiece produced the highest luminance intensity (mean ± SD: 112.3 ± 6.4 a.u., n = 9), which was significantly greater than that of the implant motor (78.5 ± 5.2 a.u., n = 9; p < 0.05). For all devices, droplet diffusion was lower during molar treatment than during anterior tooth procedures. Water-sensitive paper analysis revealed increased droplet deposition at the extraoral vacuum site when the vacuum was activated (air turbine: 62 droplets; ultrasonic device: 49 droplets; n = 3 trials each), whereas droplet counts decreased at the patient's forehead.
Conclusions: Simulated implant surgery generated less droplet dispersion compared with other dental procedures. Furthermore, the use of an extraoral vacuum markedly reduced droplet spread during various dental treatments.
Clinical relevance: These data support layered controls-judicious instrument selection and extraoral suction-to reduce exposure during aerosol-generating procedures. Findings derive from a standardized simulation and should be validated in clinical settings.
目的：本研究旨在研究牙科手术（包括种植手术）过程中产生的气溶胶和液滴的产生和分散动力学。材料和方法：在一个测试模型上使用三种不同的仪器模拟牙科手术：空气涡轮机头、超声波装置和种植体马达。使用两种类型的照明光源结合高速数码相机对颗粒行为进行可视化，从而对气溶胶和液滴的分散进行定性和定量评估。此外，还分析了放置在三个不同位置的水敏纸上的液滴沉积，以比较三种仪器之间的分散模式。结果：空气涡轮机头产生的发光强度最高（mean±SD: 112.3±6.4 a.u, n = 9），显著高于种植体电机（78.5±5.2 a.u, n = 9）；结论：模拟种植体手术产生的液滴弥散比其他牙科手术少。此外，在各种牙科治疗过程中，使用口外真空显著减少了液滴的扩散。临床相关性：这些数据支持分层控制——明智地选择仪器和口外吸吸——以减少在产生气溶胶的过程中的暴露。研究结果来自标准化模拟，应在临床环境中进行验证。
期刊介绍：
The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
